Asha Daniels v. Big Grrrl Big Touring, Inc.
2:24-cv-03571
C.D. Cal.Jun 24, 2025Background
- Defendant Big Grrrl Big Touring, Inc. (BGBT) moved to compel production of an unredacted text message chain between Plaintiff Asha Daniels and three nonparty witnesses, who are former dancers and plaintiffs in a separate but related lawsuit against BGBT and Lizzo.
- Plaintiff and the nonparties are represented by the same attorney, Ronald L. Zambrano, in their respective lawsuits against Defendant, both involving alleged workplace abuses.
- Plaintiff claimed attorney-client privilege and the common interest doctrine to withhold portions of the message chain, arguing these messages involved shared legal strategy and communications stemming from their mutual legal battle against Defendant.
- Defendant contested the privilege, arguing that the text messages were not entitled to protection because they were third-party disclosures lacking a concrete common legal interest and not involving confidential legal advice.
- The Court reviewed the redacted messages in camera, evaluated briefs from both sides, and assessed applicability of the attorney-client privilege and the common interest doctrine.
- The Court ultimately granted Defendant’s motion, ordering production of the unredacted text message chain for use in this litigation only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether text messages are protected by common interest doctrine | Parties share same attorney and legal goal, supporting privilege | Messages are third-party disclosures, lacking specific joint legal interest | No protection; shared interest too generalized |
| Necessity of attorney’s presence for privilege | No attorney presence required for common interest doctrine | Common interest doctrine only applies with attorney involvement | Assumed not required, but test not met; messages not privileged |
| Existence of a concrete common legal interest | Similar lawsuits and shared lawyer suffice for legal interest | Claims too general; no formal or legal relationship binding parties | No concrete common legal interest found |
| Relevance of redacted messages | Redacted portions not relevant, should be withheld | Messages already produced in part with no relevance objection | Objection overruled; full production ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Grand Jury, 23 F.4th 1088 (9th Cir. 2021) (defining attorney-client privilege requirements)
- Greer v. Cnty. of San Diego, 127 F.4th 1216 (9th Cir. 2025) (eight-part test for attorney-client privilege)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 669 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2012) (joint defense agreement need not be written; may be inferred from conduct)
- In re Pac. Pictures Corp., 679 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (common interest doctrine requires more than a shared outcome; pursue joint strategy under agreement)